A couple days back, I had read in the minutes of the Interim Study Committee on Alcoholic Beverage Issues (pdf) that members of the package liquor industry were billing themselves as the “stewards of control” of Indiana’s liquor regulations. According to an investigation by the State Excise Police, the truth seems to be pretty much the opposite. It is easier for minors to buy alcohol in liquor stores than in grocery stores and drug stores:
That led to statewide sting operations that began in July and have resulted in 417 citations at bars, restaurants, grocery stores, liquor marts and other alcohol retailers.
The worst violators: restaurants and liquor stores.
More than 44 percent of restaurants and 40 percent of liquor stores failed the checks. Hotels allowed underage purchases 36 percent of the time, grocery stores 26 percent, drugstores 21 percent and private clubs 12 percent.
I am shocked, shocked to find out that lobbyists testifying in front of a legislative study committee were full of crap.
One of these Stewards of Control was grousing about the sting operation in the Indy Star article. Essentially, the liquor store owner was bellyaching about the excise police not having anything better to do than harass people. After all, the owner said, he had a sign on the door that said people under 21 shouldn’t come in the store. Why are they busting his chops?
“It was a big setup. These guys don’t have anything better to do than to come in here and get people caught up so they can get a bigger paycheck?” Cobb said. “The sign on our door says clearly no one under the age of 21 should come in, and for a law enforcement officer to bring somebody in who is under 21 to set somebody up is ridiculous.”
As I recall, in Richmond growing up, a high school girl could go across the state line to Carl’s Carry Out in New Paris, Ohio and, so long as she could see over the counter, Carl would sell her some booze. Guys had to work a little harder: wait outside a liquor store until just the right kind of person came by – someone who looked shady enough to buy for a minor, but not so shady that he’d just disappear with the money.
Couple things. First, the number of Excise police in Indiana is surprisingly, maybe shockingly, low. As a result, and in reaction to changing public concerns, in the 80s and 90s Excise changed its focus to drunk driving. Maybe it’s just me, but I find it a bit curious that they revive package store sting operations, on the QT, just as major grocery retailers get liquor licenses, and that they put teeth into it just as the big push comes for Phase II.
Don’t get me wrong; I think the guy who says, “But, there’s a sign on my door!” should lose his license, and would in a fair system, though I defy anyone to say “fair system” and “Indiana alcoholic beverage laws” in public while keeping a straight face. But why did we pay for a 26-month dry run? Who’ve they been reporting the results to in the interim? Excise used to do this sorta thing all the time. It’s within their purlieu. Why were they stockpiling statistics instead of issuing citations, which might have gotten the word out?
(By the way, Doug, as far as who the major offenders were, we don’t know who was targeted; the Indianapolis citation list was mostly downtown wino haunts and blue-collar joints. I guarantee that if I were a 17-year-old with a fake ID and half-ounce of savvy I’d hit my local Kroger or Marsh, where the cashiers are too busy and too inexperienced. And my Poor Wife pointed out to me that in the sidebar list of Top Ten Offenders by city, (West) Lafayette, Bloomington, and Muncie were rather conspicuously absent, so either they’ve gotten a lot better about checking IDs than in my day, or the targets were elsewhere.)